Did The Digital Plane Image Decelerate At WTC 2? (Paper by Rick Rajter)
CB_Brooklyn Thu, 10/26/2006 - 11:54pm
DID THE DIGITAL PLANE IMAGE DECELERATE AT WTC 2?
One of the major oddities of all WTC2 videos is the apparent lack of plane deceleration from many of the observed camera angles. The plane seems to fly in effortlessly, but then comes to a complete stop while inside (apparently violating conservation of momentum and energy). To the layman, these two conservation laws mean we should expect TWO major sources of slowdown when one object penetrates another:
• Energy is lost via dissipation as the intruding object breaks and destroys the impacted area into smaller pieces
• Energy is transferred to the broken pieces in the form of kinetic energy or gained velocity.
- CB_Brooklyn's blog
- Login to post comments
Since you ask......
.....no.
I think this entire line of research is a waste of time. I think this line of research - in my opinion - is organized disruption - cointelpro - designed to intentionally misdirect people.
the research itself has consistently not impressed me.
this is not to say that all people advocating this theory are agents. they could just be trgaically wasting their time.
I agree completely.......you
I agree completely.......you would have to have the original footage shot with a 500-1000 fps high speed camera. not a multi generation compressed video found on the web..... that isn't even provided as eveidence.
weak....very weak
Strafing the messenger
It would appear that certain individuals find themselves, once again, unable to understand the laws of physics.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the busiest gatekeeper of them all?
A dolt, who thinks he has
A dolt, who thinks he has knowledge on impact of 590mph colision
search f4 crash, and see what a 500 mph crash looks like
CT doltish garbage, just another fool whose college was a complete waste of time
his parents should have "pulled it", his college money!
How can a complete idiot graduate from MIT and then come up with this?
guess he never saw a straw in a telephone pole! ignorance
fascinating logic
The plane seems to fly in effortlessly, but then comes to a complete stop while inside
Well, no, it blew up once inside, but hey, don't let that small fact get in the way of your fun!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
interesting too that Rick Rajter comes to us from... MIT!
Along with Thomas Eagar and Noam Chomsky. Hmmmm. HMMMMMM....
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
just as a point of speculation.....
......and i know this is highly speculative.....
....but, i would not expect government disinformation agents to be educated at a community college. i would expect the CIA (or whatever agency) to have assets representing the best colleges and brightest minds in america.
there have been books written about the presence of the CIA on america's best universities. of course. where ELSE would they be? that's where they recruit. the CIA does not recruit from state universities. LOL they recruit from top technology schools. in fact, if you are a math prodigy enrolled at any accredited university in america - you are almost guaranteed to be approached by both domestic and foreign agencies.
I guess you have first hand knowledge?
Why don't you address the actual scientific issue?
But you can't. So you specualte about ringers and plants.
It's all for the "good of the movement."
Yet you set yourself up to argue controlled demolition on TV - - -when you don't even believe that is a good or important issue and have argued that for years and opposed people who argued that point.
Yet you decided to drop the ball on National TV on that issue.
Glad you finally brought up the point of foreign agencies. I was wondering why you were always exclusively pointing at US efforts .
The usual distortions from Margarite
Why don't i address the actual scientific issue?
i have. i have reviewed the no-planes research and in my opinion find it to be utterly lacking in merit - and absurdist - to the point where i am forced to speculate that it MAY be intentional coitelpro disinformation. this may be my personal prejudice in that i simply cannot believe that anyone could possibly be stupid enough to believe this research.
i could be wrong.
Face it Margarite - all of your hostility towards me stems from the fact that i will not yield on this point. i will not change my opinion on this.
lastly - i would not accuse me of dropping the ball on my TV appearance when you are responsible for shaming the entire movement in your interview - and food fight - with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine.
Taibbi made this the central thrust of his story. You have even gone as far as to defend Nico and say that he was "right" for throwing food at Taibbi.
Thanks
Good work Margarite. no-planes, star wars beams, mini-nukes, cartoon planes, Keebler elves, Nico and food fights. great work.
You're off topic
You're off topic on this blog.
As far as, "The only reason you dislike me....."
Fishing expedition?
Or you just like to spin stuff.
I don't even know you. I'm just responding to your online persona.
Taibbi
made himself look bad in that it appears that he is exploiting the mentally ill.
John - Violations of 911 Blogger Policies and Rules???
John:
As you know, I have supported you in the past (e.g., in the good job that you did on Fox News, especially under the circumstances).
However, in your comments above and in other threads, is there any possibility that you are violating both the spirit and the letter of 911 Blogger policies & rules??? The possibly relevant policies & rules are as follows:
We know & respect your opinion about the "9/11 No Big Boeings Hypothesis" and the "9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis." However, these hypotheses may never get the not-so-decent burial that others & you think that they so richly deserve if you continue to interfere with the presentation and refutation of scienctific and other evidence regarding these issues.
The "Divide-and-Conquer"-oriented 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and the 9/11 PsyOp Perps would like nothing better than for us to call each other names and to engage in personal & ad hominem attacks.
Let's not give the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps what they may want most. If we continue to do so, then it may take us another five (5) years to find the full truth about 9/11 and to do something effective to reverse the domestic & international policy results that flow from the continuing PsyWar of 9/11.
Let me know. Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
I have seen you over and
I have seen you over and over again divert threads to the policies of this website, how it can be misused and more. Complaints about how people keep rational discussion from happening. But I have never actually seen you discuss anything. Instead you just complain in lengthy diatribes about what is proper discussion. In situations where people do try to have discussion you are nowhere to be found. If you want to have discussions so bad about important subjects then howcome the only thing you seem to discuss is your thoughts on how discussions should occur?
Have your discussions, ignore those that are being 'trolls'. If all you want to discuss is the nature of this website and the community as a whole and nothing else then what's the point?
(now go ahead and respond to me instead of having your oh-so-important discussions)
About Form and Substance -- "The Medium Is the Message"
Dear Anonymous:
For an example of one of my arguably-substantive comments, see "Seminal 9/11 Research? Response: 9/11 New-Research Xenophobia?" (posted 18-Oct- at 11:24am) at www.911blogger.com/node/3834#comment-81326 regarding the blog entitled "Judy Wood -- Beam Weapons used at WTC!!"
In my comment, I discuss the possibility that such "beam weapons" may already exist. I know this based on my research and based on my contact with those who know about such weapons systems better than I do. Whether "beam weapons" were actually used to take down the WTC towers, I do not yet know.
As for posting additional substantive comments (especially scientific comments), I am reluctant to do so at this time. The environment for furthering scientific discussions about 9/11 truths and falsehoods may be insufficiently hospitable for such discussions at this time. This is the reason for my advocacy of rational debates & discussions about scientific issues at 911 Blogger.
As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." To this, I would add: in this day & age, "The media (mainstream & alternative) are the massage" -- at least sometimes.
Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
If you carefully read this thread
you will see that i carefully parsed my response. i am only giving my opinion.
you can also see that some of the responses from Peggy were personalized attacks - based on my appearance on TV which has no relevance to this discussion.
it is my opinion that the whole no-planes, star wars beams, mini-nukes, Keebler elves, theories being pushed here are without merit, and to my sensibilities (in my OPINION) appear to take on the appearance of organized disruption.
the fact that the same subset of activists always seem to be advocating these diverse yet uniformly absurdist theories does not help their case.
sure - i could believe that Morgan Reynolds is gullable enough to believe tvFakery. Anyone can make a mistake once.
But, the fact that he is ALSO partnering with the Star Wars Beam / mini-nukes / Keebler elves lady - and Nico Haupt who throws food at Rolling Stones reporters.....
ummmmmm......this is a professor emeritus?
sorry - it is my opinion that this research is without merit.
that is my opinion.
lastly - i DO Think the discussion of cointelpro is within the bounds of this discussion. it is a reality - just as operation northwoods is a reality - and can openly and honestly be debated.
it is my opinion the the sheer SILLYNESS of much of this research clearly makes it an ideal candidate for further scrutiny. additionally, the fact that legitimate and salient counter-debate is met with hostility and personal accusations, further makes this research suspect.
that's my opinion - and i do not suspect it will change anytime soon.
Self-Modulation to Advance Rational & Scientific Discussions?
John, of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your opinion. However, expressing your opinion in the same way from thread to thread (especially with personal attacks) may in fact violate some of the existing 911 Blogger rules & policies.
Some of your opinions involve personally attacking others who have opinions different from yours. This may not effectively further scientific & other discussions at 911 Blogger. As you may recall, I have also admonished Nico Haupt (ewing2001) about such things. Peggy Carter rarely does this type of thing.
Whether what you say & how you say it violate 911 Blogger policies & rules is up to DZ and the other Admins. I certainly do NOT want you to be banned. I would prefer that you self-modulate...
Given your personal experiences in New York City on 9/11/01 and given your talents & abilities, you have important contributions to make to these 9/11 discussions.
We all know that you saw Big Boeings in NYC on 9/11. However, if you have any scientific basis for your strong opinions against the No Big Boeings, TV Fakery, and Beam Weapons hypotheses, I rarely see it.
In addition, you know that Dr. Judy Wood has NEVER said that mini-nukes were used to disintegrate the WTC towers. Why do you continue to say that she is or was a proponent of mini-nukes?
Taibbi
Again misrepresented and dishonest. Neither Nico nor I had any food or drink there. So he couldn't have been spitting bits of food in his face. It must have been just spit.
And if it happened, yes he deserved it.
"One of the keys to changing the current system is to discuss events such as 9/11 as openly as possible. To not be afraid of the "conspiracy theorist" label, which is exactly one of the fears those doing this use to try to socially isolate and ridicule people who understand their actions and try to publicize them." -Jon Korein
Did you read the short article?
Do you have an answer for the fact the "aircraft" appears not to decelerate?
Check out the videos of the "aircraft" entering the building. Have you? One can even eyeball it and see there is no deceleration.
How sturdy are modern jetliners?
Airplane crash
This is what a large passenger plane looks like and does, when it hits something hard. The "aircraft supposedly entered the building whole?
The hole on the south side of the south tower isn't even big enough to allow the "aircraft" to disappear whole!
Why did no pieces break off?
Also, this blog isn't for people to go around smearing people as "plants." If you have evidence or suspicions about that just put it up on your own Blog. You make yourself look like disinfo since you keep distracting from the topic. If it's so obviously wrong than talk about that. But just smearing and making fun implies there are emotional and irrational reasons for refusing to look at the evidence.
Why did it not decelerate?
You laugh. But you can't answer that.
Perhaps the thermite had
Perhaps the thermite had softened the structure in that area allowing the plane to more easily penetrate....
John O'Neil had been called to that area just prior to impact of the first plane.... There had to be a reason.... have we ever inveestigated why he was called?
There had to be some reason to notify the head of security.
was there a fire or a suspicious device?
There was an interesting
There was an interesting video on youtube of an amateur shot film from an apartment fairly close to the WTC.... they missed the second plane hitting but they have the woman clearly stating that it was a military plane hitting the tower... dunno
I really do not think they could pull off....or would want to pull off some sort of camera tricks. It just doesn't seem very failsafe. Is there technology that can be used to mask a plane in a hologram?
just does not seem very plausable
I saw that video
The woman's view was from the North-East side. So it's not clear how she saw the "military plane," since the view from her window blocked that portion of sky from where the airplane was coming and to where it supposedly hit.
Also an aircraft moving over 500 miles per hour, moves over 1/10 of a mile in one second.
There was a TV in the background too. So it's uncertain if she had picked up the info from there. She said it was a military plane. She didn't say, "I saw a military plane." Maybe she heard it on TV?
Stuff
Hey all, thanks for the comments.
1. To those saying this is a "waste of time". It's my time, and I get to choose how I spend it yes/no?
2. It is obviously important, because people are still arguing whether there was deceleration or not. Since measuring things is something we all learned in elementary school, i figured i'd put this to rest.
3. Yes I go to MIT, and no I don't hang out with the likes of Eagar. He was actually supposed to teach a class which included "why WTC7 fell." When he found out I was going to attend the class, he dropped this from the curriculum!
4 I don't care whether you are are pro or no plane. If you can't accept that the plane didn't slow down, put up or shut up and show me and the world where it is. Now, I will admit that just having no decel does not prove "no planes / big boeing." But if the pro side can't even accept this analysis, then I have nothing more to say really.
5 If my numbers are wrong, show me and I'll gladly recant. And the salter article is not exactly sufficient, as I pointed out.
Cheers
-Rick
But.....
..... you have ALREADY been challenged to produce the uncompressed video.
You have already been challenged on the fact that no legitimate scientist would base an analysis of velocity in 3-dimensional space based upon an analysis of a highly compressed 2-dimensional rendition in video, downloaded off the internet no less! Any scientist worth his salt knows that compressed video drops frames and distorts time and space. Any person familiar with the internet knows that videos can de doctored and altered by unscupulous researchers.
So, when you challenge us to "put up or shut up" i would be highly suspect of your scientific credibility if you are simply dismissing these facts.
John - Thank you!
John, thank you!
Although I have not yet read Rick Raijter's article, your comment above is the type of scientifically-oriented comment & challenge that I would like to see more frequently from others & you.
Rick, Thanks for swinging
Rick,
Thanks for swinging by. If you have a sec I have a question since I did check out your paper last night.
Given that the WTC was an open floor design (as I believe you pointed out), that the outer walls of the towers were large windows with exterior columns every 3-4(?) feet, and the relative weakness of the plane's alluminum alloy shell in comparison to the steel columns, would you really expect there to be much resistance to cause it to decelerate?
I understand your point about how easily it went into the tower with no resistance, but didnt come out of the tower. I'm really just wondering what would cause any large amount of resistance in entering the building. My opinion at the moment is that the weak shelled plane ran through the grater of the exterior wall with great ease given the plane's momentum and was basically shredded into pieces.
Also, it may prove worth your time to do the same sort of analysis on this plane crash footage as well for a point of reference:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1556575484235720126&q=plane+cra...
Steel vs. Al, Steel wins?
what would cause any large amount of resistance in entering the building?
Steel vs. Aluminum? Steel wins.
Given two objects striking one another: which strikes the other makes no difference to the impact. Which object is in supposed motion makes no difference to the effect.
Do you think if the Trade Tower was a giant baton and whacked a stationary AL tube aircraft at 500 miles an hour, that the aircraft would disappear into the World Trade Center and not shatter to bits? Or bounce away? Do you think the Trade Tower would absorb the airplane in that case? Why is that any different, considering in Physics both scenes are equivalent in terms of effect of force?
Why were none of the bits deflected? When something shatters, as Rajter points out, the pieces, because they absorb kinetic energy, actually can accelerate. Why were there no shattered pieces?
And why the pause before the explosion?
Even the tail of the "aircraft" supposedly entered the tower. And, if you look closely at the photo of the corresponding entry hole, you'll see the building girders are intact at the place where the tail, appeared to have disappeared, in the video clip.
Does the "aircraft" fold itself up at that point? As FLT 77, that allegedly entered the Pentagon, is supposed to have done - per an explanation by apologists?
If you look at the hole above ( picture in previous post of the hole supposedly made by FLT 175 in the South side of the South tower.) you will see that what we are supposed to believe -that the AL hollow aircraft severed steel columns and disappeared through concrete slabs, without having any detritus fall to the outside, doesn't really correspond to the actual damage on the outside of the building.
If it shredded, as you say, why does that not appear in the clip? On the contrary, why does the building appear to swallow the aircraft?
The picture shown above simply does not make a correspondence to the still shot of the wound in the South Tower.
You can try to say it's because you can't trust the pictures. And in that case they'd have to be wholesale fabrications.
In that case:
Show me a clip where the building does not seem to swallow the "aircraft"
Show me a picture of the South side of the South Tower "Wound" that is not too small for a 767.
If these I show are fakes, then there must be "real" records that are not fabrications? And if we discover these new "real" evidences....where have they been for the last 5 years?
Again, if the material shredded, why didn't the "aircraft" slow down? Why would it shred so cleanly, without the pieces - resisted by the steel columns, being pushed back, and falling away from the building? Especially in the places where the steel is still intact ?(see above) Why did nothing bounce off? And nothing deflect?
Why did the Aluminum "aircraft", on the contrary, appear to cut cleanly through steel? Take an especial look at the very tip of the wing print (in the above "hole" photo), where the left "wing" supposedly sliced in. How is the tip of an aluminum wing going to slice through steel and concrete and leave a print like that?
Remember, this "aircraft" is supposed to be cutting both through steel columns and massive concrete floors. And it's not even knife-like on its front edges - such as the front of the wings and the tip of the nose.
The decelration was indeed trivial
as you admit is possible from your analysis. Considering the force (mass times acceleration) that the planes would have impacted the towers with I would not expect a noticeable deceleration. On top of that your analysis is based on a very flawed representation of what happened--compressed video of a high velocity object recorded at an average frame rate. The conclusion is simple--your calculations are flawed from the beginning as they are based on a crummy video. The decelration that would result from the impact of the jet against the tower is negligible even if one doesn't consider the likely fact that the flashes observed on impact in the case of both towers are explosives being detonated to coincide with the impacts (William Rodriguez even reported a series of explosions in the *north* tower timed exactly with the impact of the plane against the south tower) which could well help to account for the ease with which the plane went in.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Interesting points
....presuming that the discussion is real - which i do not believe it is.
http://911blogger.com/node/41
http://911blogger.com/node/4117
9/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax (Analysis by StillDiggin)
Does *this* plane decelerate upon impact? If so, how much?
[Comment edited, to make point of question clearer]
I've a modest question to the video analysis experts frequenting this forum.
Here is another video. This one shows an experiment where a plane hits a concrete wall. Yes, the plane is much smaller than a Boing 767. But it is a jet, and said to move at 500 mph. Watch it. It shows a jet that does not seem to significantly decelerate the movement of its tail while its fuselage impacts a wall of concrete (just simple watch of the video, no measurement made, no scientific analysis of the video frames undertaken):
I watched this video ("experiment where plane crashes against concrete wall") twice (with a humble layman's perspective).
To me it looks like here too is no noticeable deceleration of the tail when the fuselage hits the wall and dissolves its structure completely while it moves forward. (Again, I did not save this movie locally, and I did not watch 'frame by frame', or use rulers and timers to determine distances, times and speeds.)
What is our video dissecting experts' take on that? Could they please have a look and comment?
(in other words: Doesn't this result weaken all arguments about "no decelaration in videos of WTC-hitting planes during impact" very much?)
Interesting reaction(s)
Interesting reaction(s) after more than 1 day of waiting for some responses here:
* no written comment feedback
* but "-3" points (rating downwards this simple question)??
Anyway, I've now edited my parent comment with the question a little bit, to (hopefully) make the point of my question more clear).
sorry no one responded.
Ever since 911Blogger initiated the new blog submission policy, they've been censoring new tv-fakery blogs.
And what obstacle prevents you.....
And what obstacle prevents you from posting a (even short) reply as a comment, exactly on this page?
I already answered this at lenght
I already discussed this video at lenght
about a month ago.
and why it indicates that an airplane could not have been seemingly devoured or eaten by the Trade Tower (South) as though the airplane were made of butter.
Yes, The TV image also presented an airplane which did not decelerate, which is against the laws of nature.
As a matter of fact the aircraft in this video did decelerate. In fact it stopped. Which means it decelerated to zero.
Are you trying to say the "airplane," presented in the videos which show a purported 767 disappearing into the Trade Tower, shows the tail exhibiting zero deceleration because the front of the "airplane" has disintegrated to dust?
Are you admitting that said videos do in fact show zero deceleration?
Thank you for your important questions.
Sorry I couldn't look over this in more detail at this moment but I've got other stuff to do right now. So sorry if I left anything out, but will fix that later if that is the case.
I'll re-read your post. But in the mean time, why don't you comment on what I wrote?